Pretty tired of listening to people avoid taking responsibility for their fishing actions...Something posted on the EF bait ban thread got to me a little so I wanted to post a new thread on the subject....This is meant generally and has nothing to do with the bait ban on the EF Lewis.

Is the use of bait the true reason for the decline of Native steelhead? No. Is there a TRUE reason...of course not, so saying that we should not enact a protective measure based on this reasoning is ludicrous.

Is there a single reason for the decline of Native steelhead? Of course not, the problem is extremely complex and beyond answering by the best scientific minds in the state and country. We are certainly able to do identify contributing factors and minimize the risks associated with each.

Now ask yourself if the use of bait contributes to the decline of Native steelhead. Ever try to sneak some eggs through a hole past a bazillion smolts? Ever hook one? Ever shake it off and keep fishing? Ever hook another?

Which is why it is ironic for the same people who say they care about Native fish to complain about even the suggestion of a bait ban. I am not necessarily for or against the use of bait, I'd just once like to hear people who consistently fish with bait admit that they kill smolts. I have and, especially while fishing for summer runs, seldom use it anymore. I also catch my share of fish..

All we can do is take responsibility for our own actions. Consider the impact of a bait ban on your fishing style. Maybe you rely on bait too much and could stand to learn some new tricks...Maybe you could be even more successful foregoing bait entirely, I am positive that at least in certain situations this is true.

Please note all...the lack of flames directed towards individuals. If you want to flame something here, flame the ideas not the individuals who present them.

Thanks for letting me express my opinion...

Good topic
The problem with the smolt is that they do not bite on just bait. Whether they bite on bait more then artificial lures I do not know. I do not use bait that much because I do not like the taste of fish and do not kill steelhead just for the eggs. I kill somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-6 fish a year for family and friends who like fish. If they are hens then I cure the eggs and use them. I am no bait expert but I catch far more steelhead on corkies, yarn and shrimp oil then I do eggs. On the other hand I probably clock in 10 times more hours on corkies then eggs.

Anyway my point is allot of steelhead smelt are killed with artificial lures also.

Once new a guy that used to go up on the Snoqualmie River where Tokul creek dumps in right at the hatchery. He and another guy would come back and say how they each caught 50 trout each in a matter of about 3 hours. Now you know as well as I do that these were steelhead smelt but I could not convince him of that. He did not use eggs, all his 4-inch trout/smelt were taken on little spinners.

I think it boils down in trying to educate those that are willing to listen. Unfortunately once people start catching fish often times they are unwilling to listen. Once he found out that those were smelt he should not have gone back to the Snoqualmie and fished more, unfortunately he did.

This is a good topic...

This is what I've seen as far as studies go:

Bait has a negligible effect on mortality for adults, either summer or winter runs.

It has a more significant effect on downstream kelts, which are feeding somewhat aggressively after spawning.

It has a very high mortality on smolts that are caught and released.

Based on the above, I wouldn't support a general bait ban, but I'd support one in specific places at specific times so as to remove some of the negative impacts on kelts and smolts. For example...

A bait ban in December wouldn't make much sense. There are no smolts in the river at the time (or very few), and most summer runs have already headed back out if they've survived spawning. Also, most rivers don't have native populations of summer runs, so I wouldn't be nearly as worried about them if they were hatchery fish. If it was a river with native summer runs in it and they were present in significant numbers in December I'd be able to reassess the December ban. In almost no cases would it make sense in February, though by March there are downstream native winter runs that may be affected. I'd also like to see the best possible success rate on catchig and removing hatchery fish from the system so they don't spawn in the river.

In the summer when greater numbers of smolts are present, I could be convinced to not fish bait. I can also support not opening rivers to "trout" fishing when the trout that are actually there are smolts. Few of our rivers support fishable trout populations, anyway, except for a few good sea run or dolly runs, and those fish will eat anything, so bait doesn't really help you out much.

There are significant issues, though, that are definitely important to consider.

What is the difference between mortality from bait and mortality from artificials? There is a difference, but there is mortality from both.

Is that difference worth the trouble? Is the loss of fishing opportunity for some who fish bait significant enough to be looked at? Is taking a stand on this issue, and its attendant division that will automatically come up, worth the difference in mortality?

I think this is important to point out, too, that I fish about 70% bait when it is open to do so. These answers are easy to address if you fish exclusively with bait (definitely "no"), or exclusively with flies (definitely "yes"). Most of us don't fish exclusively with anything, so that has an effect on how we'd be coming down on this issue.

It's fair to consider all these issues, and it's fair to make decisions based on personal issues along with the scientific issues. About the only thing I wouldn't agree with is if someone automatically says "no" for the sole reason that they don't want any additional restrictions on their fishing. IMHO, anyway...

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd,

The studies that you are referring to also concluded, I believe, that it was barbed hooks more so than just bait that contributed to higher mortality in both smolts and adults. How many bait fisherman do you believe fish bait with a barbless hook? IMHO probably not that many.

I also agree that a year-round total ban on bait doesn't make complete sense. Like you, I believe it should enacted on a seasonal basis, much like the Snoqualmie river where bait is illegal from June 1 to Dec. 1.

In the other thread, Jumbo expressed an opinion. It may not have been presented in the most tactful way, but it was his opinion none the less. And lo and behold, he was personally attacked by one of the CEO's of Ultimate Egg Cure. (I thought there could only be one Chief Executive Officer of a corporation by the way, maybe I'm mistaken?) Again, IMHO with this kind of devisiveness in the sportfishing community, is it any wonder we're in the position that we are today.

4S,

You're right about the barb vs. not-barbed mortality. I think you and I have talked about this one before at a TU meeting, haven't we?

With the exception of a spinner, I haven't found any less success with barbless hooks so far as hooking and keeping them on. If anything, whatever reduction in success that no barb brings is probably more than made up for by fish being hooked more easily due to the lack of barb...

Here's another one that I didn't make very clear in my first post; hatchery fish spawning unquestionably hurts native fish, and catching native smolts on bait hurts native fish. In a particular river, which is worse? If it's hatchery fish spawning, and bait increases the success rate (definitely does for winter run hatchery fish), is it more important to catch the adults or not catch the smolts? I'd like to see information on questions like that, since most things have effects beyond the immediate intended ones.

Fish on...

Todd.

Have you ever tried explaining politely to someone that they have caught a smolt and not a trout?

Just last Saturday, after hearing that the Sol Duc hatchery had released a half million smolts, I tried to convince a friendly enough fellow at the Bark hole that the fish he had just caught, since it wasn't a cutthroat, was almost certainly a smolt. The fact that its adipose fin was clipped actually had him even more convinced that what he had caught was a hatchery trout!!!

Are most people aware that resident trout are nearly nonexistent in our Western rivers?? That anadromous smolts out-compete most resident trout for food and holding water to the point that their numbers are statistically insignificant is lost on most fisherman I think.

Todd your thoughts on bait bans with meaning are right on the money. Why bother with a bait ban in december when the only fish around are mature adults, the evidence suggests that mortality on these fish is negligible if hooked and released. I would support a statewide ban on bait during the summer fishery or at any time there was a fish population in the river that would be at risk, including late Spring when there are so many downriver fish present.

My experience is that the type of bait ban make a huge difference also. In my experience steelhead smolts and sea run cutts are extremely difficullt to hook with sandshrimp and egg clusters. However with single eggs or worms a person can be deadly!!! For that reason i'd say hardware and fly fuys have more of an impact on smolts cause lets face it almost no one uses worms or single eggs for steelhead. I think the closure of trout fisheries during smolt migrations are the way to go and full trout closures on streams that really have no trout like the East Lewis.

4S,

Before you give Keith too hard a time, let's review what Jumbo said. From that, I gather he's saying that anyone who DOESN'T support a statewide ban on bait has their head in their a$$. Sounds like a pretty good way to get attacked to me. If you're going to make comments like that, then you can pretty much count on being attacked by somebody.

BTW: I think CEO is Chief Eggwhore Officer, and there are many openings within the U.E.C. company.

Sorry Dan,

It wasn't so much that I wanted to give Keith a hard time, as it was an expression of disgust at the constant in-fighting between the different factions. (baitchuckers, flyfishers etc.)

OK H2O! How would you handle the issue of Sardine wrapped Kwikfish? Not likely to kill smolts, and an effective springer bait. Banning all bait would also include these Lures.

What about scent? A bait ban would also include scent.


SA

A bait ban, like any other regulation, should be effective at increasing the likelihood of achieving a specific goal. A general bait ban might do that, but it isn't the least restrictive method for doing so. So after identifying the specific management objective, it is necessary to sort through the alternative measures that would get us there. And considerate folk that we are, we would choose the least restrictive measure. So time and place bait bans will usually make more sense than general ones.

I think angler education can do wonders as well. So talk to guys when you see them hooking tiddlers. Now if they're creeling the little buggers, they may not be receptive to enlightenment. (You might have to try another tactic.) Smolts surely do attack bait, but sometimes they won't leave flies alone, either. If I'm fishing flies with barbs, I'll pinch the barb if I get hits from smolts. If they keep on hitting, I usually move to another pool, as the little buggers are often clustered in certain areas. I figure I'm not likely to hook what I'm after if I can't get my fly past all the smolts.

A good thread. Nice to see folks discussing the issue instead of bashing opinions, ideas, and each other.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Hey SA - (I Love saying that, it reminds of Cheech and Chong!!)

I personally have had only marginally better success with Herring wrapped Kwikkies vs. straight kwikkies. I would be willing to sacrifice the three or four extra hookups a year I get with the stinky kwikkies if it meant fewer killed smolt. That said smolt aren't voracious kwikfish biters, I support more of the time and place bans as outlined by Salmo G....

As for scent...gosh, it sure makes one feel more confident when its on ones lure but could we catch fish without it?? I think so...remember I'm not talking general ban here, just Summertime mostly when fishb are at their most aggressive anyway.....

You know it cracks me up, a bunch of people on here saying this and that, but what most all of you don't realize is I spend 35-50 evenings a summer fishing the mid-lower EF and catch more than my share of HATCHERY fish... You might see 5 native summer runs on a good year and you rarely if never catch an unclipped smolt in that section of river, but let me tell you what you do catch.... About 10-30 SQUAWFISH a day, I REALLY WONDER IF THEY'RE TAKING A TOLL ON OUR SMOLT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank God we're down there fishing bait and killing everyone of them Damn SQUAWFISH we catch or that SQUAWFISH rearing pond would be the best place to go and catch them...
So sure let's ban bait, and let the SQUAW's take over, that will solve the problem... Maybe our lazy, lack of knowledge of what's really happening GAME DEPARTMENT would like to come down with me and see the 10's of thousands of SQUAWFISH that inhabit our EF of the Lewis and Washougal. These rivers get so low and warm in the summer that it's just sick.. Perhaps we could work on the watershed, that would help there...
By the way 4Salt, I wasn't trying to be an A$$, it's just when someone jumps out and says something so stupid, I figured I would too..
Keith

Forgive me Keith if I take your position with a grain of salt, if your signature is accurate it sounds as if you have a vested interest in the perpetuation of bait usage.

As for Squawfish, what studies have you seen that would indicate the banning of bait would lead to the Squawfish 'taking over'? I thought not...suppositions of that nature have no bearing on the argument of whether to ban bait here or there at a certain time or not. I think its important to remember that although we all have empirical databases built up in our brains based on our personal experience, drawing any conclusions based on that data is a faulty exercise because of our inherent lack of objectivity.

Here is an example of what I mean...EF Lewis you hammer the squaws with bait during the summer...Hoh, I hammer the native smolts on bait in the summer....as Salmo G. pointed out above selective bait bans make much more sense for reasons just such as this.

The same game department that made this decision for us (sportfishers), also let the gill netters use 4" and 5" gillnets as tangle nets. I have no factual data on the mortality of a steelhead caught in a gill net but I bet it is a whole lot more deadly than bait. I recall in the early 80's my Dad & I started fishing steelhead on the EF in mid Nov.. I believe that old Nate run is gone due to coho gillnets. I agree with Keith. A bait ban is not the answer. A complete trout fishing closure, habitat improvements and a net ban are a better starting point.

I'll tell ya something else about them SQUAWS, I've gutted many of them and see that the larger ones are feeding on the fry not the hatchery sized smolt that are released... But as I mentioned earlier you don't catch many if any native smolt at all in the lewis year around unless your fishing lucia falls and above... That's where the few native smolts that actually make it are rearing and you do have the incidental native smolt catch..

But on to other problems that I've been seeing.. I've already landed 4 HATCHERY summer runs and only one of them didn't have a SEAL mark on it... I've also caught and released some nice Native Winter Steelhead that had net marks around their necks, and SEAL LION MARKS DOWN THERE SIDES and I wonder where they came from.. So TANGLE NET MY A$$, those net's have to have a larger mesh size than the game department is talking about or fish wouldn't run into these problems...
BAN ALL NETS IN THE LOWER COLUMBIA AND KILL ALL SEALS AND SEA LIONS, and you'll see our NATIVE WINTER AND EARLY NATIVE SPRING STEELHEAD MAKE A TURN FOR THE BETTER... As they have in the past couple of years without all the netting pressure and small spring chinook and smelt runs which don't attract as many SEALS AND SEA LIONS!!! But it hasn't been until the last couple of years that we've had surplus runs of spring chinook and smelt runs that attract all the NETTERS and SEA LIONS!!!!
By the way I LOVE BAIT for this reason here:

And, another look at the monster taken on a 1141, with 8lb leader and #2 hook... This pic was taken yesterday, 4-18-02...

Keith

...and I do not want to be flamed but should we really be fishing 1141's when there are big wild steelhead around???

There are 3 possible scenarios being discussed here:
1. Statewide bait ban
2. Selective place and timing of bait bans
3. No bait ban(s)

A statewide bait ban is not supported by available science....some studies say bait causes excess mortalities and some say it doesn't have any significant effect. Proponents of either side can pick their 50% of the available science and argue til they're blue in the face. Simple fact is that the science is inconclusive...so until that issue is definitively decided all decisions will depend on politics.

Selectively applying bait ban as to time and place is a great idea but again there is no science...so again the decisions will be political.

No bait ban at all is also without scientific support....so again our decisions will be made in the political back room.

The issue of barbed versus barbless ...well same thing. Some studies say bad and others say not bad.

So it comes down to this... do we want politicians making decisions without any scientific backing? Personally I'd rather practice and encourage personal ethical choices.
If I was fishing a river and hooking smolts continuosly I would certainly make a switch to an alternative bait or lure.

As for socalled trout fishing its my understanding that nearly all rivers have a minimum size of 12 or 14 inches and require the fish to be finclipped if you kill one? But I do see many people taking stringers of 6 to 8 inch salmonids and calling them trout. On my home rivers these are either steelhead or coho smolts(notice the white stripe on the anal fin?). Problem is that the rules prohibiting this are in place...but guess what its the same old problem...NO ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS! So writing new rules are a zero effect solution.

Whoa haven't said that much in a long time.

I posted a picture of myself holding a chrome bright 16 pound native fish, caught without bait on a Siwash hook...doesn't prove or even support your argument, mine either. In fact posting pictures of yourself holding fish in full spawning color could draw the ire of those finding fishing on redds less than ethical, especially bait.

I think the science is there for selective bait bans and maybe Todd or Smalma could back me with studies or some such thing.

Gooose I agree with you that personal ethics are necessary...unfortunately I feel strongly that further measures are necessary because there will always be people who will always fish with bait (see above).

Boy am I so sorry, but it happened to be that we got two chrome hatchery summer runs out of the same run... But I thought I'd share what we all are in this sport for... THE MONSTER!!! And yes, it was successfully released...
Sparkey, remember a nice thing about fishing from a boat is you can chase fish.... Therefore the lighter gear doesn't hurt so much. This fish was hooked and played for no longer than 10 minutes.
God I love steelhead!!!
Keith

I would be in favor of a statewide barbed hook ban - we do have enough studies to show that barbless hooks kill fewer released fish. I pinch my barbs down pretty much by habit for everything - I do a lot of saltwater fishing where it is required anyway. Barbs don't help the fish stay on at all unless you are in the habit of slack lining your fish all the time. I have been fishing barbless on the Columbia all spring chinook season - I catch at least a fish a trip, 90% wild, and I can't make them come unhooked even if I try.

I would also be in favor of a ban on trout fishing in anadromous waters - I know the rules more or less prohibit this already with the large minimum size and wild fish release, but still there are people "trout" fishing all the time - killing and releasing smolts in blissful ignorance. If this were outlawed then fewer people would be doing it and a few that do might even get caught.

I think a minimum hook size is appropriate also - nothing smaller than a #2 in anadromous waters. A big hook is not as likely to get swallowed by a smolt, and if barbless will do little damage most of the time.

I'm not in favor of banning bait - there is no evidence that more fish are killed biting a bait than anything else. And from personal experience a big chunk of bait on a big hook does not catch near as many smolts as a small rooster tail - I too was once ignorant of the anadromous life cycle when I first moved over here from eastern WA as a kid. Finally, if we ban bait how will anyone ever catch a sturgeon - never heard of the artificial that will catch one of those puppies, outside of perhaps dynamite or a lead-wrapped treble.

H20 you'll find if you look nonselectively at "ALL AVAILABLE" scientific studies that the overall answer is inconclusive on use of bait vs no bait and barbed hooks vs barbless hooks. Sorry but thats science for you. What it comes down to is this...choose your 50% of science that supports your "Ideology" and use it politically to support your imposition of your ideology, ethics or religious beliefs on others thru laws and regulations unsupported by conclusive science. Myself...I can't support this method...but I strongly support personal choice in choice of ethics in our fisheries. In the end irregardless of current law and any changes made to them this is the only way any thing will ever change as long as there is no one to enforce the laws.

As to displaying dark fish....would you support a complete closure of all of our rivers from February thru June? Me ...I choose not to make the issue personal.....guy wants to post pics of large dark fish...cool....as long as they practice careful cnr methods on those fish not a problem.

BTW I've rarely hooked any smolts anywhere specifically on bait anymore than on nonbait presentations. Maybe I fish the wrong rivers.
I have though hooked in the jaw a fair number of searun cutts on some rivers but inconsistently.

This brings up a good point, How many of you can tell a "trout" (smolt) bite from a steelhead bite?

HMMMM.... Getting turbo, (smolt) bites? then don't set the hook and drive a barb through junior's brain.

Hmmmmm.... Getting a good thump on a bait of eggs? then set the hook and catch a "daddy".

Not rocket science.

Aaron

By the way H2O,
There will be many of pics to come in the future, and YES almost everyone of them will be fish that are caught on bait...

And back to the SQUAWFISHIES I was talking about... It's said that these worthless trashfish are one of the main predators to our smolt in our SW WA river systems and lower columbia tribs... Perhaps you haven't fished the EF of the lewis in the summertime when the water is like a bathtub full of these worthless brown turds up to 3-4 pounds and full of steelhead and salmon fry, and also including bugs, periwinkles, and the minute plankton that our smolt need to survive.. But the game department doesn't care to do much about ridding our lower columbia tribs to these trashfish...

Another study WDFW did on the EF that just cracks me up is they put a "cone" in the lower river in which catches all downward moving smolt, fish, etc... Then they'd come every other day and check their little cone trap and (tag or horass) our poor little native fry/smolts in that 60 degree water to transport them back up river and check the success of their downriver cycles... Was that necessary, NO... But they went on and did it.. What they should be doing is running mesh nets through the holes and cleaning out the squawfish and rid the SW WA rivers of this predatory problem...
Keith

Well said Gooose, on both posts. I fish bait most of the time (when legal), I too very rarely hook smolts/trout while fishing with bait. I fish size 1's or larger, even in the summer, while drift fishing. A size 1 hook with a bait of eggs, shrimp, or prawn is usually "too much" for a smolt to handle, let alone swallow. The only time I jump down to a 2 or 4 is when I'm free drifting (boondoggin') out of the sled on rivers such as the NF Lewis or Cowlitz. Even then, rarely do I catch smolt.

This brings me to what Lead Thrower mentioned. Just because bait is banned doesn't mean you can't walk up to a river and catch the living sh!t out of smolt/trout. A person throwing small spinners, size 1 or 2, or whipping small flies can do MORE damagae than a person targeting steelhead with bait due to hook sizes. A hook restriction size makes more sense to keep EVERYONE in check. Say, no smaller than a size 1 (gap measurement, due to the varying size between hook brands)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the WDFW Commission that turned down statewide steelhead release? The same people that imposed the new rule on the EF Lewis? Maybe their "science" is right after all stlhd20. Maybe next year I'll just go ahead a take my season limits of natives on the all the OP rivers. After all, their "science" says the escapements can handle it. Whatdaya think? It'd be kinda sad if a guy like myself who has always released natives to start beleiving in "science" without much fact.

James

Here's a nice fish that is a bit of a chromer and was taken on eggs, but not off a redd...

Wow James, I think you hit the nail on the head with that last post... Well said, very well said...
Surely you didn't take this EF summer run nate off a redd James, and thank god we killed all them SQUAWFISH!!!

Keith

Everyone wants to save the wild fish, but no one will quit fishing. C&R kills fish, listen to the complaining that went on when they closed one of the rivers above Seattle to C&R. We want to ban this and ban that, as long as it doesn't affect the way "we" fish. I say until you put your fishing pole away, you have no right to try to impose any rules on anyone.

Fishhead5

Thank you Aunty M for what you've said, it's sure that you can see all sides..
But I really hope that the lewis does get it's bait rights back and it can become a personal opinion in what you'd like to do to help the fishery...
Keith

I have a tough time seeing how that quote was a flame in any way, I felt I was stating the obvious. Everyone has a right to their opinion however:

An Alumaweld salesman will tell you the best boat is an Alumaweld, a Vision hooks salesman will tell you Vision hooks are the best, a Lamiglas rep will tell you that Lamiglas rods are the best...a bait salesman will tell you that bait is the best lure. These opinions are not invalid, in fact that's what you'd want to hear out of successful company representative.

However, with me, this diminishes the weight those opinions carry when I start to examine these issues as a whole. That is exactly what the expression "grain of salt" means. I hear and respect your opinion but I am not likely to give it much weight. Not a flame, but I suppose I see how it could be construed as such. Definitely not my intention and I'm sorry you took it that way.

I have eschewed bait in favor of spinners and spoons almost exclusively in the summertime and, at least in the river I most frequently fish, I kill incidentally far fewer smolt. I have put my lurebox where my ethics are and I encourage others to do the same.

Stlhdh20,
You can put your lure box anywhere you want. Until you put your rod away and quit killing smolts, everyone can see where your ethics are.

Fishhead5

Hey Everyone....Peace?!? I encourage everyone to find their own ethics and practice them. Encourage others if you want towards your choices...but don't attack the choices of others in your efforts to persuade. Especially given the lack of conclusive science in this particular case regarding your choices or others. Also think about this...when it comes down to arguing over a few percentage points of difference in impact...well a dead fish is a dead fish...and hypocracy rules. Fish your lives...not someone elses. No flameage intended towards anyone here btw.

Fishhead5 -

Out of all the arguments presented here yours actually makes the most sense. Unfortunately it fails the hypocricy test too in a big way unless you have personally 'put your rod away'.

This post is meant to contribute to the ongoing conversation questioning the ethics behind fishing bait year round. As others have said the science on this subject appears to be slim to non-existent. All we are left with is our personal observations, frame of reference and conversations such as this to help us determine where our personal ethics lie. Looks like we've got a terrific cross section of opinions...

I don't think its hypocritical in the least to note that, when I fish bait in the summer I kill more smolt and then change fishing methods accordingly. In fact here is an analogy:

President Bush sent Americans to war knowing that a small number of Americans would die to protect a large number of Americans, probably a tougher decision than any of us have had to face today. Does this make him a hypocrite to say "I am protecting Americans" when Americans are getting killed as direct result of his actions? Of course not, at least not in my view. In fact doing nothing was the last thing Pres. Bush could afford to do.

I look at protecting Native fish in much the same way. Is it hypocritical to say "I will adopt personal measures to protect wild smolt", follow through by discontinuing to use bait in the summer and then accidentally hooking and killing a smolt?? Of course not, at least in my view. In fact doing nothing is the last thing I can afford to do.

Thanks for contributing to this thread everyone....

Firstly, I've got to agree wholeheartedly with stlhdr1. The squawfish, nets, and seals are such a problem that no bait ban in the world is going to do squat until the state gets off its A$$ and fixes the real problems. I do not support a bait ban..... on any river, and will continue to fish with bait whenever I want to until these other problems are addressed. It is not right that the sportsman should suffer time and again just because the state cant take care of bussiness, or is unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure the survival of the native runs. Get the God Damned nets out of our rivers, start killin off these Squaw fish, and open up a hunting season on seals, then we'll talk about banning bait.

Amen, ZoZo!!!!!!!!!
Keith

Another discussion on bait bans?

This issue has been debated for more than 20 years and there is probably no issue that divides steelhead fishermen as much as a bait ban. Below I'll attempt to lay out some of the information that is known on this issue.

Numerous studies of the last several decades have consistently shown that the use of bait results in significantly higher mortalities that artifical lures. For this discussion scents should be considered to be bait as the fish behave (bite) to scent lures much the same as other baits. The use of bait in "trout" fishing typically found mortalities in the 30 to 50% range. The majority of mortalities in the various studies were caused by the fish being hooked in "critical areas" (gullet, gills, base of the tongue, eye, and brain). When a fish attempts to ingest the bait the probability of being hooked in a critical area increases dramatically - thus the high mortality with bait.

The size of our parr and smolts means that the past studies on trout should be considered in discussing this issue. An important factor to remember is not everyone on our rivers are targeting steelhead/salmon. For an example a hooking mortality study on the Stillaguamish looking at mortality of sea-run cutthroat using night crawlers found that for every legal (at that time 14" or larger) cutthroat caught there were 18 steelhead parr caught during the study. It was determined that the mortality of the parr was more than 35%. Another thing that was noted was that going to larger hooks (as typically used in steelhead fisheries) did reduce the number of fish hooked however the mortality of those caught remained high. Those caught on larger hooks often could not take the bait deeply yielding fewer hooked in the gullet and gills however this was counteracted by the "gaffing" of the fish with the large hook. During the "gaffing" the fish was often impaled through the eye, brain, gills, or heart which almost always resulted in a dead fish.

To examine what the potential hooking mortality maybe, lets look at an example. There are somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 steelhead fishermen in Washington. Lets assume that 35,000 of the them are hard core bait users and each of them catches 1 steelhead parr/smolt a month (more in the summer and less in the winter) for a total of 12 per year. Reasonable? Given the typcical mortality that means each fisherman killed 4 parr a year. Given that the over-winter survival of parr is around 50% that means that the equivalent of 2 dead smolts. With a 10% smolt to adult survival for wild steelhead that equates to 0.2 adult wild steelhead. 35,000 anglers times 0.2 adults/anglers equals equivalent to 7,000 wild steelhead. To put that in prespective that equals about the average number of wild steelhead killed by Washington sport anglers during the mid-1990s (punch card estimates). If you believe that past harvest of wild fish is excessively then is the parr hooking mortality?

The above is just the impacts on steelhead parr and doesn't consider the impacts on steelhead adults, sea-run cutthroat, "Dollies", and resident trout.

Adult steelhead hooking mortality studies have almost all been a by product of brood stock captures where the fish are capture by actively fishing the bait. This differs from how many anglers use bait. For example it has been found that the percentage of steelhead hooked in critical areas (likely to experience mortlatiy) was higher in a plunk fishery than a drift fishery. I'm sure that most of you would acknowledge that while using bait the number of fish hooked in critical areas is higher when the fish is given the chance to "eat" the bait (use of bait divers, drifting without weight, giving the fish slack line on the bite, etc)than while fishing on a tight line and setting the hook immediately on the bite.

Sometimes the argument is made that resident trout should not be a consideration in anadromous waters. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that the reason that resident trout are rarely seen on most waters is that bait has been used for decades and the resident fish are being actively selected against (30% mortalty per capture is pretty high). In fact in almost every anadromous stream that I'm aware of that is closed to fishing, where the use of bait is prohibited, or has little fishing pressure resident rainbow trout are found. Not only are there trout in these waters they often live to surprising ages (up 10 years) and large size (multiple pounds).

If bait bans are to be considered the biology of the young steelhead indicates that seasonal use of such bans will reduce most of the impacts. Once the water temperature drops below the mid-forties the fish seek out over-winter habitat (log jams, among the boulders, and other "hidey-holes"). The fish remain in those areas until the water temeprature rises or they become smolts. In this part of the world this means that the fish have limited availability to anglers from sometime in November into March.
Ergo - summer bans of bait.

Todd was correct in that kelts (spawn-outs) have higher hooking mortality than unspawned fish. Basically the kelts begin feeding shortly after spawning. One study found that kelts caught on bait were hooked in critcal areas about 30 to 35% of the time.

In our zeal in chasing steelhead we often forget that our rivers are the home to quite an array of sportfish: steelhead (hatchery and wild), various salmon, sea-run cutthroat, Dollies, resident rainbow, cutthroat, and whitefish. In some cases even warm-water species. Often one or more of these species are on the "Endangered Species List". There are valid fisheries other than those directed towards steelhead.

As things currently stand on most rivers it is for each of you to wrestle with this issue in accordance to you own fishing ethics.

Tight lines
Smalma

When discussing issues as divisive as a bait ban conflict is inevitable and unavoidable. In order to have an effective conversation on the issue both sides must be presented and the arguments of both sides dissected for flaws in logic.

Where above am I trying to impose to my fishing ethics on others AuntyM? By explaining my ethics and how I have I come to adopt them? By encouraging others to do the same? By pointing out the flaws in the 'no bait ban, period' argument?

Just because I take a position counter to yours and defend it well doesn't mean I am looking to cause conflict, it means I am constantly comparing my ethical stance vs. that of others. Having the flexibility to change or adapt my ethics when presented with new information or ideas should indicate to you that what I am after is your (the board's) general opinion. If you make a statement whose premise is faulty and I say "Your premise is faulty" this is not an attack on the person, I am questioning the premise.

Now...calling me a hypocrite for being concerned about smolt enough to change my approach but not discontinue fishing entirely is an attack. Using this faulty argument I could infer that fishhead5 does not care about Native fish because he believes that anyone who does believe so should discontinue fishing. I don't believe this to be true at all, just pointing out the flaw in the argument.

Am I looking for conflict? No. Am I looking to discuss issues which people are passionate about? Yes. Should I expect conflict as a result? Yes.

The question is how responsibly have I dealt with that conflict. Well, I haven't attacked anyone or called them names, I may have called their ethical practices in to question but the whole point of this thread is that I questioning all ethical practices that surround the use of bait, including my own.

Again it seems like some people can't make the distinction between a personal attack and someone questioning their position in an argument. Too bad because for me, I believe that once you have become intractable (will never change your opinion) you have stopped learning. I feel strongly that I need to listen to people who try to tear down my arguments, I learn something almost every time.

Smalma -

Sorry about continuing a discussion that has apparrently already been beaten to death...

Thanks for posting in spite of that....

Stlhdh20,
You pat yourself on the back for not using bait when there are smolts in the river. But you still catch a few, so you still kill wild fish. What difference does it make if they are 5 inches or 20lbs? I don't want to fish anything but eggs. I can fish floats, spinners and pink worms. But I love nothing better than to freedrift eggs! I hook very few smolts. I use either 2 #4's or 2 #2's with a cheater in the middle. To big of a bait to hook most smolts. Let me pose it to you a different way. If you are fishing a river that is C&R and you come across a boat that is pulling bait divers. Your first reaction is to jump all over them for fishing in such a manner, where there are only nates. But you by out there fishing have a chance of mortally hooking a fish also, not as great as the people pulling bait divers, but still a chance. Is it OK for you because you have lessend the chance?? This is where we differ in opinion. You are the same in my book. I fish in C&R rivers, I accept that I'm going to kill some on accident. So I have no right to tell others what to use and what not to use until I quit killing some myself.

Fishhead5

Someone want to complain about smolts dying then they should take a look at the saltwater. Go downrigging sometime with a flasher and a spoon off Seattle for silvers. You will especially with siwash hooks kill more smolts than silvers.
So should this form of fishing be banned?

Certain rivers at certain times apparently have a huge number of smolts present and they bite at hardware too and die incidentally. Well maybe we should close that river during that time period.

Should CNR fishing be allowed anywhere there are Federally listed species present?

Was I wrong in getting the lower portions of the Duckabush and Dosewallips closed to all fishing inorder to keep the "River Runs Through It" crowd off the rivers where they claimed to be legally fishing for cutts and summers while they were actually targetting summer chums and in odd numbered years depressed runs of pinks? They were having a blast unknowingly killing these poor salmon stocks in their cnr fishery. Like it or not guys..it wasn't bait, nets, or seals that were punishing the remnants of these runs...it was those who claimed the socalled "highest ground." I hated to do it but I'm proud of the results.

What it comes down to is be careful which "throne of righteousness" you choose to claim....it may not be what you think it to be.
Our choice to fish by any method carries with it a knowledge that we will cause the mortality of some portion of what we prize the most. I live with my self realization every day I fish or hunt. Anything else is hypocracy.

"What difference does it make if they are 5 inches or 20lbs?"

The difference is that when I use bait I hook more smolt which are much more likely to die as a result than the 20lbr...

"If you are fishing a river that is C&R and you come across a boat that is pulling bait divers. Your first reaction is to jump all over them for fishing in such a manner, where there are only nates."

Where did you ever get this idea? I would never chastise anyone for fishing within the rules. I have pulled bait divers this year in a river with predominantly native fish, not really by choice as I was fishing in someone elses boat. The taking of native fish was allowed at the time. I wasn't the captain at the time and didn't really want to make waves. I also wasn't aware of the difference in hooking mortality until very recently. At the time, if someone would have given me a hard time about pulling divers I probably would have gotten pretty defensive because I was within the rules.

"I fish in C&R rivers, I accept that I'm going to kill some on accident."

I have said many times that to C&R for native steelhead you know that you will probably kill the occasional fish.

The main difference I think between our opinions is our differing experiences on the river. Before I quit using bait in the summer I caught hundreds of salmon and steelhead smolt almost exclusively natives. I switched to using hardware and plugs and I now catch nearly zero smolt.

In both of our cases our experiences have dictated our ethics. I am not sure what your home river is, maybe there is a reason you aren't catching many smolt while using bait in the summer.

"throne of righteousness"

Where are you getting this stuff?

H2O-
It's pretty apparent you've never fished the EF of the lewis much or I need some of your bait if you have... The smolt just aren't there to be had unless you're up in the upper river in the closed waters, but who want's to fish for dark summerfish anyways that is in the upper parts of the river when it does open back up...
Keith

HMMMMMM should I say it???????????????????



KILL THE NETS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sthdlh2o; Checking your "ethics" against the ethics of your fellow fisherman and staying one step ahead of the expanding masses changes is OK, but I think if you check your ethics against the resource it will be a quicker more enlightening trip.

stlhdr1 -

This is exactly what I was trying to say. My experience is on a river where the smolt are thick in the Summer throughout the river. I have arrived at my personal conclusions through a completely different set of observations. If I fished the EF Lewis I might have the same opinion as you.

Jerry Garcia -

Could you explain what you mean by that?

It's funny James and I were talking last night and came up with a great idea, if they do go with a bait ban on a river then it would be only fair in our non-communist country that we have a "bait-only" river. That way we could have the segregation that the game department wants, sort of like having no african americans in a specific urinal way back when, we're past that and we all know segregation isn't right. It's not a communist country...

If we had a bait-only river then we also figured it would be a great way to stop or seriously slow snagging during the fall.. Couldn't you see it, snaggers up there baiting up every cast to snag salmon, that would slow that problem quite a bit.

The legislature will not allow for this law to stand and it will only be time until it is lifted. We'll have to be patient and just see what happens. Until then, I will be fishing bait in the EF of the Lewis and every other river that I come across with bait being legal...
Keith

You said you are "constantly comparing your ethical stance versus that of others ". I think {this is only my extremely personal view point} that if you compare your ethics to what the resource needs instead of comparing your ethics to the ethics of the status quo, the journey to what is best for the resource [ethic wise] is shorter.

Wow man .... heavy. Pass that thing over here again ....

That was heavy Jerry, Can I get a hit too....
Keith

I figured that's where you were headed with that...how extremely diplomatic of you. I agree with you whole heartedly except, if I were to use the health of the native runs on my home river to determine my ethics I might not make any changes at all. I'd like to do what I can now to contribute to the future health of the resource before there is a concern, even if it is only in a small way. With the numbers that have been presented above by Smalma I figure that by switching as I have I've allowed three more adults to return (conservatively) minus my predation. Also, I've convinced two other fishermen to do the same, there are ten returning adults right there, far more than I've killed than C&R'ing natives.

Sure, its all based on research that hasn't been proven conclusively and lots of people will question my math which is perfectly legitimate (the questioning, not the math). Hell, out of those 'ten fish' eight of them were probably caught in nets and sold for cat food, which is discouraging.

I'm not trying to preach at all...there are anglers on this board who are just beginning to fish and hopefully just beginning to wrestle with questions of ethics. I hope they look at this issue as objectively as possible and find solutions that are based on the best interest of the resource first.

But remember H20 this whole debate started with the fact that bait fisherman have been segregated from specific sections of rivers, but now the game department has gone off the deep end by saying that an entire river basin is closed to one method of fishing and that's bait. They have minorly addressed the true issues that are stopping our fish from returning.

As you know until they address the REAL problems, I will ignore what has been done and go about my normal and what used to be legal ways on my home river...

One other question for you... How many times have you been on a river system in the summer that is being fished hard with all types of gear and tactics and noticed a dead steelhead in the water?? I know I've spent 1000's of hours on the EF of the Lewis in the summer and during times that it runs 100-150cfs with water temps around 60+ degrees and you can see in every run top to bottom and never once have I seen a dead steelhead that was overexhausted or bled to death... Sort of odd where they get their mortality stats don't you think????
Keith

Now there's a solution to be proud of.

"I don't like a specific law so what the [Bleeeeep!], I think I'll just ignore it and fish like I usually do."

Right or wrong, (In this case it may very well be wrong) once we begin to selectively ignore and break laws even if we may think they have no logical reason for existing, where do you think that leaves us sportfishers in the long run. It's the same tired arguement we've all heard before "Until the tribes stop netting, I'm gonna keep bonking."

If you don't like a particular regulation, use proper and LEGAL channels to get it changed. Otherwise, hopefully the local Game Warden doesn't spend "thousands of hours" on the EF Lewis during the summer, because you my friend are a ticket waiting to happen.

H2O,

I think I sat on your "thrown of righteousness" the other day after our 3rd or 4th visit to that irish restaurant. What was it's name.... Mc something or others.

Welcome aboard Hilo...this is pretty good stuff isn't it??

Tried plunking the Willamette today, pretty sure I needed heavier weight and one less dog!

Good to finally join the boards here. Certainly a more opinionated board then I am used to. Maybe that's the diff between Oregonians and Washingtonians?! Nah!

Curious what a rookie makes of this conversation, do you have an opinion?

Don't know if I am educated enough in terms of understanding the full issues at hand. With that said I would hesitate to throw out any opinion of mine as it appears (from a rookie perspective) that there are a lot of people who have a hard time listening/seeing/hearing any perspective but their own!? Throwing out my novice opinion, that would certainly be lacking in a ton of research and experience, would only provide fodder for those who seem to find it necessary to point the finger at every other potential source of the problem aside from one they may regularly contribute to.

Instead I choose to sit back and soak up as much as possible before formulating my own opinion. I would hope that once I have developed an opinion I would not be so closed minded as to neglect other oipinions whether I agreed or not. But hey, what do I know!!!

I will say that I find the argument to have an open season on Sea Lions to be laughable at best!

Hey everyone.......

No need to get bent here......nobody's getting killed.

I think it's been a pretty good disussion, and the conclusion I've come to is that our fisheries need to be micromanaged, rather than having regulations put in place statewide. The Wynoochee isn't the Lewis isn't the Skykomish isn't the Kalama. The WDFW has been only marginally successful at studying single watersheds and developing strategies to manage them. Whether this is due to budget constraints, lack of personnel, or a mindset within the WDFW is a matter of debate. But if they don't learn to micromanage each watershed differently, then trouble is brewing.

What's important here is that a dialogue is taking place. Obviously, H2O and Keith see things differently, but that's not a tragedy. It's an illustration of how conditions vary from river to river, and why statewide regulations tend to be too general in scope. Keep the dialogue going, and you get a chance to see the slippery slope we're standing on. Bait ban today, ban on fishing altogether tomorrow? We need to find a "level of comfort" for doing what we're doing which is fishing for (whether intentional or not) fish that are threatened. I'm sure PETA's comfort level is that fishing end completely. That's not my comfort level, but neither is bonking nates on the OP because "guides in Forks would suffer because of C&R regs". You find a reasonable comfort level by exchanging ideas......exactly what's going on here.

Keep the exchang going. And don't disregard other people's opinions unless you want yours disregarded as well.

Thanks Hilo...probably a wise choice

Great post Dan, what I am going for here is dialogue. I hope this has been something approaching that.

I've certainly learned a thing or two from this conversation, most importantly that I may have supported a statewide ban going in, now I definitely think this is a bad idea. I am still convinced that my home river could benefit substantially from just such a ban during the summer months.

Thanks again everyone for not straying too far down the path to flames...it's a much more effective dialogue without them.

h2o I think we tend to agree on most points, I fish barbless all the time[well not for halibut] fish bait some, but really prefer jigs. I don't fish the winter nates, and rarely fish for summers[ to many good eating saltwater fish to catch] sorry if I seemed too diplomatic, I like for people to think before they react.

I tend to ageee with Smalma's last post. Nice to see actual facts that I am familiar with. Had no idea my snide comment from last week would create such a productive thread.

His quote about the quality of non-bait fisheries brings it all home for me.

"In fact in almost every anadromous stream that I'm aware of that is closed to fishing, where the use of bait is prohibited, or has little fishing pressure resident rainbow trout are found. Not only are there trout in these waters they often live to surprising ages (up 10 years) and large size (multiple pounds)."

almost every stream with legendary and healthy (not what WDFW calls healthy) runs of wild steel (think B.C. and Oregon) has a general bait ban or some type of selective gear rules.

In my experience I have definitely found better anadromous and resident fisheries in rivers with bait bans. And no worm containers!!!

Stlhdh20, going to change a few words of your first statment. "Which is why it is ironic for the same people who say they care about Native fish to complain about even the suggestion of shutting down a river to C&R". I guess to me there is no gray area, either you put your pole away and then stand up and say look what I've done for the wild fish, I don't kill any fish at all. If you don't, then you have no right to say anything at all. You still kill fish. No if, ands or buts about it.

Fishhead5

4Salt,
It is something I'm proud of.. One thing I don't think you realize is the people that put this law into effect probably have never touched the bank of the EF of the Lewis... Where as I have fished this river since I was kneehigh to a cowpie. I fish it all summer long from April 15th to July 30th and during that time span you might see 4-5 true Native adult fish and I still can't think of a time I've caught a native smolt, but have caught a share of hatchery smolt in the beginning of May. Is that the fish they're trying to protect???

I wouldn't disagree with a bait ban in the upper reaches of the river where the water stays cooler and the smolt will hang until they're old enough to make their maiden voyage to the ocean.. Remember the lewis runs right out of the mountains and only runs about 300cfs on average through the months of May-July and typically by June it's running in the upper 50's and July the low 60's through most summers as far as temperature goes.

So back to what I said in the earlier post, I will go about my ways and still fish bait until I can see a true reason to stop, as I'm a see it to beleive it kind of guy...

If a gamewarden writes me up, well he better stick around because my next cast will be with bait again...
Keith

Is there any way we can send a copy of this thread to the WDFW comission???

I think it's time for this one to go to bed as well.